solarsystemtourfandomcom-20200213-history
Talk:Earth/@comment-121.147.149.58-20180714072919
}} |maxarchivesize=200K |counter=15 |algo=old(60d) |archive=Talk:Earth/Archive %(counter)d}} Future vs Long Term Future & Tied vs Closely Tied Dear User:Keith-264, thanks for your recent edits. But as I see it, your point of view is not entirely correct, since Future means anytime that is to come. As we know, Sun will become red giant in later stages of its life, its not going to happen in near future, as such, long-term future is the correct representation of the fact. Simply saying future of Earth is tied to Sun is incorrect also in the sense that there are other factors as well which may affect Earth's future in long or short run, such as huge asteroid impacts, gamma ray bursts aimed at Earth etc. When we say long term future it conveys the message properly that the evolution of sun will eventually destroy Earth in far future and that is certain. Same goes with Tied and Closely Tied, as Tied makes it exclusively to the sun. Regards --ubedjunejo 14:05, 11 February 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ubed junejo (talk • ) External links modified (February 2018) Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified one external link on Earth. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes: *Added archive http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/planets/profile.cfm?Object=Kerbin to http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/planets/profile.cfm?Object=Earth When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot|'InternetArchiveBot']] (Report bug) 05:41, 18 February 2018 (UTC) Semi-protected edit request on 22 February 2018 (talk) 22:30, 22 February 2018 (UTC) :You need to tell us what edit you want made. Dbfirs 22:34, 22 February 2018 (UTC) How does this work? "The diameter of the Earth at the equator is 43 kilometres (27 mi) larger" The Earth is only around 12km in diameter, so how can it be 43km larger in diameter in any dimension? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zbzzn (talk • ) 17:13, 26 March 2018 (UTC) :The diameter is more than 12,000 km (more than twelve million metres). Dbfirs 17:41, 26 March 2018 (UTC) Semi-protected edit request on 10 April 2018 Please add the following as the second sentence "It's also mostly harmless" Irishsausage42 (talk) 12:41, 10 April 2018 (UTC) : - fails WP:42 - :-} - Arjayay (talk) 12:49, 10 April 2018 (UTC) Access Dates for Refs Hello, It appears that there is some edit warring between User:Dawnseeker2000 and User:Dhtwiki and User:Drbogdan. As a neutral observer, I wanted to start a new section here for discussion of whether Access Dates for references should be included or not included in the article. Please do not continue to revert the article until consensus is reached here. Sincerely, Fritzmann2002 15:16, 16 May 2018 (UTC) :Hi, I think Drbogdan is not involved in this, nor has this become an edit war, at least so far ;) Normally, access dates are not necessary for books and journal references, but here we have google book links, so inclusion of access date is justified in my opinion.[[User:AhmadLX|'AhmadLX']] (talk) 15:22, 16 May 2018 (UTC) ::FWIW - this is all news to me - no, I am not involved in any of this - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 16:40, 16 May 2018 (UTC) ::There has been some discussion on my talk page giving pros and cons for removing the access-date parameters. I see no compelling reason why they shouldn't be restored; no policy or consensus I'm oblivious to has been manifested. So, I'll restore them soon, per WP:BRD, before subsequent editing makes that difficult. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:58, 16 May 2018 (UTC) :::I'll just say that I'm thoroughly confused by the idea of adding accessdates to book or journal citations. These are static resources without risk of changing. While I would not editwar to keep them out, I certainly question why they were added in the first place. — Huntster (t ) 00:40, 17 May 2018 (UTC) ::::@Hunster: Access dates were included in book refs for which google books links are given, these links are not necessarily static and so access date should be there.--[[User:AhmadLX|'AhmadLX']] (talk) 01:02, 17 May 2018 (UTC) :::::Access dates also can also help determine which archive snapshot to use if the link goes dead; and the parameter is used by bots for that purpose. In the past at least, archives and bots were less able to determine on their own which snapshots were useful and which showed just 404 errors or the like. They've gotten better at that recently, though. Dhtwiki (talk) 01:16, 17 May 2018 (UTC) ::::::I see no need to transmit details to the readers when there's no useful information presented. And leave Drbogdan alone. The guy's innocent! ''Dawnseeker2000'' 01:43, 17 May 2018 (UTC) :::::::The information is potentially useful if readers want to edit. These are not my citations, but at an article I more actively edit, the access-date parameter has proven useful as a pointer to the likeliest archive snapshot if the link goes dead. That's something less likely to happen with Google Books, which, I think, was the target of all the citations involved here. However, I instinctively don't like to see the parameters deleted. Dhtwiki (talk) 01:45, 18 May 2018 (UTC) :::::AhmadLX and Dhtwiki: That's fine. As I said, the accessdates don't harm anything, but they remain pointless in this situation. As far as I'm aware, archive services do not save the actual book portion of the Google Books pages (and I did just test this). — Huntster (t ) 02:32, 17 May 2018 (UTC) Mean anomaly misleading Earth's mean anomaly is listed in this article as a static value, which is highly misleading. Earth's mean anomaly grows by approximately 1°/day. Earth's orbital elements are listed in the sidebar: * semi-major axis * eccentricity * inclination * longitude of ascending node * argument of perihelion * mean anomaly The first five elements are mostly fixed, but the mean anomaly constantly changes. Today, the article quotes a mean anomaly of 358.617°. 'This is equivalent to saying, "Today is approximately January 1st." ' However, today is July 3rd, and Earth's mean anomaly is approximately 178°. Possible fixes: # remove mean anomaly (simplest) # state mean anomaly with an explicit time reference, for example, Mean Anomaly: 358.017° as of 12:00 AM (TT) on 1 Jan 2000. # create an auto-updating value, similar to people's ages (most complex) This is also a problem for other solar system bodies on Wikipedia, including *Mercury *Venus *Jupiter *Saturn *Uranus *Neptune Surprisingly, no mean anomaly is given for Mars. To find mean anomaly on a given date: https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=mean+anomaly+of+earth+1+Jan+2000 Jaspast (talk) 15:07, 3 July 2018 (UTC) :The infobox actually indicates that the elements are for epoch J2000.0, but it's hidden enough that both you and I (initially) missed it. I agree that it's potentially confusing, but perhaps anyone who is actually going to need the value should understand that it varies constantly and will probably notice the J2000 eventually? Maybe? A2soup (talk) 20:34, 3 July 2018 (UTC) I didn't miss it. J2000 is specified, but still insufficient. J2000 doesn't specify an observation time--only the coordinate system being used. An observation time would need to be specified explicitly. For example: Mean Anomaly: 358.017° as of 12:00 AM (TT) on 1 Jan 2000. Note that this is a different value than the value currently provided in the sidebar. Also, there is no indication given anywhere that mean anomaly varies; nobody is going to figure that out on their own. Jaspast (talk) 18:42, 11 July 2018 (UTC)